Friday, November 5, 2010

No, there can't be evidence for a god.

After debating the subject on the Pharyngula comment threads for several days recently, I’m going to re-enter the fray (for background, see below*). I don’t think I’m necessarily adding anything beyond what I’ve already said, but this format allows me to better organize and present my thoughts.

I think the central point is getting lost. This has nothing to do with proving naturalism or dismissing scientific claims out of hand. There can’t be evidence for a god because it’s simply a fictional notion. It’s merely a product of the human imagination, like any fictional character. (We can of course to some extent trace the literary-mythical development of the Abrahamic god-idea, but it’s not necessary to do so.) I’m perplexed by the arguments that some god concepts are more amenable to evidence than others. None of them are, from the most “personalized” to the most nebulous. The crucial aspects of a definition of an entity – What is it? Of what does it consist? How does it operate? – are not answered in the case of gods, ghosts, angels or demons.

Pointing to some characteristics of a fictional character – loving, angry, jealous, large, simple, powerful – doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of developing a concept of an entity for which evidence for or against existence could be brought to bear. Of course, god-concepts, as imaginary constructions, are all completely plastic: features can be added or subtracted at will because they’re completely made up and have no referents in reality. It’s nonsensical to accept any particular complex of such features as a description worthy of science, since these types of features have nothing to do with the sort of definition necessary for empirical consideration.

Nor does it make any sense for scientists to accept that any observable phenomena would provide evidence of the existence of any fictional notion. “If a god exists, it will be purple.” “A god will bring storms and plagues for years on end.” “If a god exists, prayers to it will be answered.” “A god can raise people from the dead.” What do such claims even mean? How could they have any place in science? We can certainly measure whether there are purple things or storms or distance healing or reanimation, but this has no bearing on the existence of imaginary entities. Any phenomena, including those that appear to violate physical laws, could be attributed to some fictional entity or process, any fictional entity or process (bound only by the limitations of the human imagination). Some fictional entities already form part of the various human cultures, but this fact doesn’t make it reasonable to accept that empirical observations could provide evidence for them.

The best way I can think of to explain what I’m getting at is to suggest imagining a situation in which the notion of gods – in the specific or generic sense – didn’t exist. (This is the actual situation scientifically – these fictional inventions do not exist in the scientific sense.) All we would ever have are observable phenomena, potentially explained in any number of ways.

People keep asking about the past and present situation: “Isn’t the lack of evidence for any deities to some extent evidence that none exist?” If I agreed with this, I would have to accept the possibility that future evidence may appear. But I don’t agree. It’s a strange idea altogether. There’s no more sense in talking about evidence in relation to these imaginary notions than there is in talking about it in relation to the Ghost of Christmas Past or the Cat in the Hat or Pinocchio. There can’t be evidence or a lack of evidence for something that lacks any basic definition. To the extent that some confluence of phenomena resembled, or resembled the claimed modus operandi of, some particular concept, it would show nothing other than that some people invented a non-referential concept that happens to share (superficially, as it has to be) some features with observable reality.

I’m not agreeing with Eugenie Scott at all. This isn’t about any supposed limits of science in studying supernatural entities. These “entities” and “realms” aren’t. They’re simply inventions without even imagined referents in reality. There’s nothing there but a parade of colorful literary characters and abstract notions. Science can’t possibly consider them, has no reason to consider them, and has to dismiss them. That’s the situation. Would it be possible for someone to develop a real definition of a god entity that could plausibly be amenable to a reasoned analysis of evidence? I don’t think so. But that would be different from the situation now.

50 comments:

And the tale of an invisible, dangerous god could have meant survival for the priests' progeny, as the god gets the first and best of everything (A sudden thought), just as the tale of George Washington & the cherry tree brought income to its inventor only more so.

So between the definitive "How to Write About Gnu Atheists" and your guests this afternoon, you're going to post a comprehensive assessment of the recently brewed Evidence debate? Christ, girl, you need to find your mellow! :-)

Also excellent, and also exactly what I was looking for, since, again, the Evidence debate directly informs my discussion over on Thoughts from Kansas. The accomodationist, Mr. Josh Rosenau, indicated that we have no method of exploring 'supernatural entities', but we (either as a species or narrative tradition) keeping inventing them (he claimed "needing them".) I pointed out that when deities are/were invented, they are not supernatural; they are natural because they affect, somehow, the natural world. They only become "supernatural" by necessity, once they have been empirically disproved, which they all immediately are.Now, you are saying something slightly different, I think; you are saying that there cannot be Evidence. I'm saying there can be, there is, but it all so universally disproves the hypothesis of deity that it is simply difficult to imagine any other kind of Evidence.

Even when considering 'evidence against', the concept of 'god' now seems to me, at best, to be a kind of placeholder: a dummy concept. It's an unopened box that even we atheists pass around, between each other, in order to communicate some feeling for the unknown and mysterious in the world. The point is almost not to open the box and see what's inside.

I don't think I have my head around explaining it to you or even to myself, though. I was raised a believer, so it's hard to detach myself from the notion that I actually had an idea what the concept was in the first place.

There can’t be evidence for a god because it’s simply a fictional notion. It’s merely a product of the human imagination, like any fictional character.

???! The supposed evidence would be used to assess whether the notion of a god was fictional or not, so you're ruling it out by fiat. You are adding nothing of value here. Just dogmatism. (For the record, I agree that notions of god are fictitious, but that rests on the absence of evidence for me.)

"There can’t be evidence for a god because it’s simply a fictional notion. It’s merely a product of the human imagination, like any fictional character."

This is called assuming your conclusion, which is a logical fallacy. It's faulty thinking, no more valid than saying "Everything is evidence for god because god made everything." It's circular and dogmatic reasoning.

HOW do you know gods are fictional? Because of the state of evidence. The lack of evidence for gods supports the conclusion that they do not exist. So the issue is TOTALLY about evidence. (There isn't any.) And yes, that means that there could hypothetically have been evidence for the existence of gods in some possible reality, just not, as it turns out, in ours.

I believe too many people in the "evidence doesn't matter" camp seem to think that by admitting the possibility of something means that we can't ever dismiss it, but the opposite is true. Science is only able to dismiss supernatural entities BECAUSE it has considered them and found them to be hollow concepts. By saying Science can't possibly consider the supernatural, you've actually taken away any grounds upon which science could dismiss it. That's what the NOMA proponents want to do--to remove Science's authority to make a judgment on the matter. Saying evidence doesn't matter actually undercuts the very conclusion you say you wish to reach.

Well, no, I'm not misreading you. I just think you're wrong. There is a difference.

You said: "These “entities” and “realms” aren’t. They’re simply inventions without even imagined referents in reality."

But you can't compare ideas against reality UNLESS you're talking about evidence. That's what that comparison requires--checking these concepts against the evidence (i.e reality).

For you to say both that evidence doesn't matter and that gods have no referent in reality demonstrates a confusion on a very fundamental level. It's you who fails still to grasp the implications of what you're actually proposing.

You very obviously are. I've explained what I mean by "fictional" and why such notions aren't amenable to evidence in some detail (there's another link to an essay by someone else that goes into more in my next post). Address that.

But you can't compare ideas against reality UNLESS you're talking about evidence. That's what that comparison requires--checking these concepts against the evidence (i.e reality).

Here's where you go wrong. You can't compare undefined notions against reality. There has to be something there, something defined, for which evidence can be adduced or not. This is not the case with deities.

Really like Luke's box metaphor. We're passing a box, but aren't allowed to mention it's empty, has always been empty, and exhibits no sign of containing anything.

The only "definitions" for gods I've ever heard are dogmatic one-liners, which don't convey information and contain the implied suggestion that you should really shut up now.

"god is love""god is omnipotent, omnipresent and perfectly benevolent""god is all around us""god is wisdom""god is charity and kindness""god is our moral compass"

How do I recognize a wisdom? What does an omnipresent look like? Can I hold that compass of yours? Those questions seem silly, but that's because I can't seem to ask any not-silly questions about people's assertions about god.

So you either shut up, smile and nod at the crazy people or tell them they're full of nonsense.

Clearly some conceptions of god, or more broadly the supernatural, are ill-defined and unpursuable. But that's not an inherent feature of the nonmaterial. There are material concepts which can't be investigated for identical reasons. So all you are really saying is that incoherent ideas aren't even wrong, they're incoherent. On this much we can all agree.

But clearly gods (or supernatural entities) can be broadly outlined in a manner which isn't inherently incoherent. For instance, if we tentatively accept the working definition of a supernatural entity as a consciousness that exists independently of any material substrate, there is no reason why such a thing couldn't exist in principal. Such things don't exist in our universe as far as we know, and so we can reject them on the basis of evidence. But that's the only basis for rejecting them since we have no basis for ruling them out a priori.

And despite some assertions to the contrary, our working definition of the supernatural need not be a complete explanation if there was a clear phenomenon requiring one. Dark matter is a legitimate phenomenon despite the fact that we haven't the first clue what it might be. If there was evidence for the supernatural, it would exist even in the absence of a robust explanation for it. The fact that such evidence doesn't exist, however, does means that we don't need to trouble ourselves with coming up with one.

As far as the complaint that any seemingly mystical occurrence could just as easily be ascribed to advanced aliens, this would again be true for material phenomena as well. The weak atomic force could be a field generated by advanced aliens. Science doesn't presume such things because the violate the principal of parsimony. If supernatural (or paranormal, if you prefer) phenomena occurred with the same frequency and reliability we've come to expert of natural ones, then supernatural explanations would be the most parsimonious. To pull the advanced aliens card would be to employ a double-standard that materialists don't impose on their own explanations.

So I maintain that this is still an issue of evidence. If one wishes to refer to reality in any manner when arguing against the supernatural, one is in fact relying upon evidence, whether one consciously acknowledges it or not. To say that evidence doesn't matter is to quite literally say that reality doesn't matter, which is a position so indefensible that I can't help but insist that the people making this argument haven't given the matter sufficient thought.

SC, you forgot to mention that Steve Zara started this all, when he proposed to not fall into the trap of letting the religious get away with placing their belief beyond logic and evidence.Some of your commenters here seem to suffer from that same predicament.

(By the way, it's annoying not to be able to post under my name or nym through wordpress or typepad)

Dark matter is a legitimate phenomenon despite the fact that we haven't the first clue what it might be.

No. It's a proposed explanation for observed phenomena. I don't know enough to know if it's anything other than stand-in words at the moment. As I understand it, the understanding of it is based on existing notions of matter, and therefore it has some semblance of a scientific definition. If not, and it's just a name for what we don't understand, then evidence can't be adduced for "it," because there's no "it." People would just be seeking to understand what's going on and using the term to mean that which they don't understand.

But talk about gods. You seem to be conflating definition with explanation. Observed phenomena require explanations. Undefined fictional notions do not constitute explanations. These remarks make it clear that you haven't in fact followed my comments on the subject.

Answer honestly: Have you read the posts and threads I linked to?

As far as the complaint that any seemingly mystical

No meaning.

occurrence could just as easily be ascribed to advanced aliens, this would again be true for material phenomena as well.

Listen, I haven't made the advanced aliens argument here or anywhere (though I don't oppose it, among others). There's no such thing as a seemingly mystical occurrence, because mystical has no real meaning. There's no such thing as immaterial phenomena, because immaterial has no meaning.

If supernatural (or paranormal, if you prefer) phenomena occurred with the same frequency and reliability we've come to expert of natural ones,

I don't prefer either, and neither term is useful. You're just giving a name to hypothetical experiences and thinking it gives some imaginary notions reality. Seriously: read the comments at Pharyngula.

then supernatural explanations would be the most parsimonious.

There's no such thing, and all you're doing is saying "If X happened it would be supernatural/paranormal and therefore best explained supernaturally/paranormally." It's an exercise in magical naming, not science.

Mia Boondy: "a consciousness that exists independently of any material substrate" -- could you define the term exists for this statement?

There is no matter involved. What other form of existing do we actually acknowledge? We really do tend to demand at least some subatomic particles before we start to acknowledge any existing.

You're basically suggesting that there doesn't even have to be some other location or other type of matter for something to exist. What exists, if there is nothing to serve as the carrier for information?

You're right that I didn't link to his post - it was because PZ did in his post that was the first on my list. But apologies to him. (Though I've been arguing something along these lines for months and Zara didn't mention me. :))

"That isn't a definition, working or otherwise. It's just a negative statement. It doesn't respond to any of the necessary features of a scientific definition."

It's a philosophically sound definition that could be investigated through science.

"It's an undefined fictional notion not amenable to evidence."

It's not undefined. I just defined it. And it is amenable to evidence, so you're doubly wrong. You certainly haven't demonstrated that such a notion would be fictional, you are merely asserting it.

"I'm saying undefined fictional notions are not amenable to evidence."

Something cannot be both undefined and fictional. Truth values cannot be assigned to incoherent ideas. This is a good example of the type of schizophrenic confusion emanating from your side of the debate.

"I don't believe you've read any of my other comments on this at Pharyngula or the other post I linked to in my next post."

I don't know how many times I have to assure you that I'm as versed in this discussion as yourself. I've participated many times in the discussions at Pharygula (under the name H.H.), and then as now, the evidence-doesn't-matter camp has failed to understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge claims. In addition to myself, Paul W. and Sastra have offered more than competent explanations throughout the various threads on the subject. So I reject your arguments because I find them incorrect, not because I haven't heard them endlessly repeated.

"There is no matter involved. What other form of existing do we actually acknowledge? We really do tend to demand at least some subatomic particles before we start to acknowledge any existing."

Yes, this is true of our reality, but our reality is not the sum total of all possible realities. An idea just has to be conceivable to be coherent. In the Star Wars movies the Force was a term given to a range of phenomena which included the ability to communicate telepathically and move objects with one's mind. How does the Force operate exactly? Well, we don't know. But we don't need to know to simply discuss concept of the Force. It has rules. It's has demonstrable affects. We can test for the existence of the Force in our reality and discover that it does not appear to exist. None of these things require a mechanistic explanation to be in place beforehand, nor is the concept utterly incoherent without such an explanation.

Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it consist?" makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.

The discovery of Maxwell's equations illustrates this. Maxwell did much work in formulating the aether, the medium through which electromagnetism traveled. It consisted of "vortices" and other funky stuff (google for the diagrams). It's purpose was to answer precisely your questions with regard to electromagnetism: What is it? Of what does it consist? Indeed, the "mechanical" workings of the aether approximated Maxwell's equations.

As you probably know, the aether was discarded; the Michelson-Morley experiment rendered it untenable, but even before that the idea was unnecessary. We have Maxwell's equations, and that's all we need. Of what does an electron consist? Of what does a quark consist? We don't know, and it doesn't matter as long as we have a theory which grounds the concepts in evidence.

Every single physical law we have was once "merely a product of the human imagination". Almost all of our ideas are wrong, having no correspondence to reality. But once in a blue moon someone gets an idea which is confirmed by reality. How would we know, a priori, which ideas were the pure fictions and which had some merit? We don't know, and we couldn't know. Instead, we perform experiments.

As it stands, your argument is circular because it presupposes that certain notions are necessarily fictional and without evidence. But you don't know that; nobody knows that.

Consider the experiments in prayer. Like quarks, we don't care about the inner workings or mechanisms of the deities in question. We only care about results: testable, verifiable, scientific results. The theory can be crazy-sounding as all hell as long as it delivers results. Of course, prayer consistently fails to produce results.

The only thing preventing the testing of each idea which comes down the line is practical limitations on what is reasonable to pursue. Many believe prayer experiments are a waste of time. But if someone wants to do it, I'm still interested in the results. Rather than complain that they shouldn't have done the experiment, I can use their results to further confirm that prayer is ineffectual and discuss the implications of that.

@SCAh, you nailed it. I doubt anyone would say that we could ever get convinced by evidence of Santa Claus if there were one. No, Santa doesn't exist, he is fiction. When people mention the evidence, they are imagining a fictional universe.

Oh, hey, things got hopping since I last checked. I'm just going to answer the first comment, for now:

I may be wrong, but I think the point is: evidence of what?Well, Luke, I agree with you in general, except in my specific case, I've opened up the box to see what's in there. As an atheist, this is what I saw:

God, regardless of context, is three things, all related.

1. The cause of the beginning of the universe.2. A universal context, which is to say the concept of a sentient being capable of knowing all things, all times, and all levels of detail, and from that perspective make moral judgment.3. Something that connects me (however defined) to both "1" and "2".

I don't think it is worth quibbling about, but I submit that all atheists know what is in the box, which is why we never have to bother opening it. Most gloss over the attendant conundrums and dilemmas as easily as religionists do, things like how to define "good", how to exercise self-determination (with or without free will), and how to justify one's moral existence. Daily life gives just enough of this stuff for most people to cope when necessary and avoid when possible; only philosophers and theologians worry about it on purpose.But for the words we use to make any sense at all, we must recognize the concept of God, we must be aware of what the word means. That's all. It doesn't matter that it isn't even possible for there to be an awareness of all things, we can imagine that there is, and that's what we have to deal with.I think a lot of the problems that we have with theists is that it doesn't seem possible to reject their delusions about the universe without also forsaking their metaphors about it. And those metaphors are important to their self-awareness, and can't be intellectually removed.

How DO you know what is wise? Is there even such a thing as wisdom? If not, then how about intelligence? Love? Existence? All words fall apart just as swiftly as 'god' does. All things are just as ineffable. That's isn't a useful analysis to make, I think.

Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it consist?" makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.

Yes, they do make a difference, because the questions are inextricably linked. But go ahead: define how a deity operates.

What kind of blog are you running here? We have to go read your comments on Pharyngula to get your point?

I guess so. Honestly, I didn't think it was as difficult of a point to get as it's turning out to be. But when I note that I've been debating the topic for several days and link to the threads where that happened in the original post, it's rather bad form to comment with the same arguments that have been discussed at length on those threads. I'm not interested in repeating the same discussions over and over or in having them simultaneously.

Did you read my post? The whole point was that it doesn't matter how the deity operates. The only thing that matters is a testable hypothesis. As in my example of the aether, it doesn't matter how electromagnetic waves work (as in the aether explanation) as long as we have something to test (Maxwell's equations). It doesn't matter how prayer works (deities, voodoo, invisible clowns), as long as we have something to test (double-blind controlled experiments with hospital patients).

Did you read my post? The whole point was that it doesn't matter how the deity operates.

Did you? You said: "Your criteria, "What is it? Of what does it consist?" makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?" This was confused, but it was what you said.

The only thing that matters is a testable hypothesis.

And deities are not this and lack this. A hupothesis requires defined entities/processes.

As in my example of the aether, it doesn't matter how electromagnetic waves work (as in the aether explanation) as long as we have something to test (Maxwell's equations).

Look, I don't know enough about the history of the notion of the aether to discuss it competently. But it couldn't be tested for unless it was defined. Like dark matter, it was either a fictional notion or it wasn't. Has no bearing on my arguments about the possibility of evidence for fictional entities - it's a matter of categorization.

It doesn't matter how prayer works (deities, voodoo, invisible clowns), as long as we have something to test (double-blind controlled experiments with hospital patients).

As I said, I have discussed this at great length. We can observe correlations between phenomena (actions and thought patterns, theoretically, and healing). We wouldn't know the mechanism, and would have to investigate, but a deity, as an undefined notion, isn't a meaningful explanation or mechanism. "Tests" of such relationships are not tests of any deity. They can't be, because deities are not defined. (In the contemporary context, as I've argued, "prayer works" is not a hypothesis by any stretch of the imagination, but that's a side issue in this context.)

...makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.

You did not use my meaning of "operate", so to keep things rolling I just went with what you said. Obviously neither of our points hinge on the word "operate". Whatever you call it, I only care about testable hypotheses, and these do not require a "mechanism".

Just think about how science is actually done. We discover some phenomenon, and it passes our preliminary hypotheses, but we're still not sure what is happening. Discovering an underlying mechanism comes later, or it may never come at all.

Your point of view is exactly the reverse of how science operates. With 20/20 hindsight, you declare that all scientific theories must come to us fully-formed with well-defined entities and mechanisms. No, it doesn't work that way. We fumble, we bumble, we test ideas without quite understanding what is going on. But with enough work, we finally understand to a useful degree.

According to your reasoning, had Maxwell shown you his new equations describing EM waves, you would have dismissed his proposal because it doesn't have a "mechanism". This is actually understandable if you try to imagine how "magic" these new invisible waves must have seemed.

Fortunately, Maxwell already thought of your objection. He shows you his voluminous work with diagrams of vortices of circulating thingamabobs. "Great!" you respond, "Let's test tests these equations, then!"

See the problem?

(You don't need to understand EM waves here; all you need to know is that the aether explanation was unnecessary.)

Time to invoke Lenny Flank (sadly his website no longer appears available so excuse the cut-n-paste:)

"The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:

"1. Observe some aspect of the universe

"2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed

"3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis

"4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions

"5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions

"NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing."

Indeed, James Randi has been performing just such scientific tests on supernatural claims for decades. When confronted with this information over on Pharyngula, the evidence-doesn't-matter crowd were forced to make absurd declarations like that what Randi does isn't science but merely "demonstrations." So intent are they to hold onto the bald assertion that supernatural entities are undefinable and untestable that they are forced to ignore actual instances of such tests.

George K., good luck getting through to SC, but I suspect it's a fruitless cause. I've certainly wasted too much time here. You can only warn someone they're about to walk over a cliff so many times before you have to shrug you're shoulders and let them.

"NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause".

For the nth time, "gods" are not a hypothesis or scientific cause. Undefined invented notions can't be. Nor can they be tested. Of course they're excluded. ("Supernatural" is a red herring.)

Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses.

No one isn't, because hypothesis require defined concepts. Science does not invoke, but defines clearly and explicitly.

And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest.

As I've said, to the extent that it doesn't, it should, and must. That's the whole argument people have been having on some of those threads you've not read.

Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing."

Experiments (in some circumstances) and demonstrations called experiments (in others) have been carried out on observable phenomena. None of them were experiments on undefined notions like gods. If you weren't such a dolt, you would read the arguments on the threads I linked to and engage with them.

What I said was,...makes no difference as long as the last one is fulfilled, "How does it operate?", if by that you mean there are testable hypotheses which can be made.

I meant "How does it [the alleged entity] operate?" On this and the other questions depends whether hypotheses (which are by dfinition testable) can be made.

You did not use my meaning of "operate", so to keep things rolling I just went with what you said.

My meaning of "operate" was clear from the questions. You're simply confused.

Obviously neither of our points hinge on the word "operate".

Yes, they do.

Whatever you call it, I only care about testable hypotheses, and these do not require a "mechanism".

They require defined entities, based on the questions I asked.

Just think about how science is actually done.

Oh, good grief.

We discover some phenomenon, and it passes our preliminary hypotheses,

What do you mean by this?

but we're still not sure what is happening. Discovering an underlying mechanism comes later, or it may never come at all.

Discovering a mechanism is discovering what is happening. Proposed mechanisms have to be defined or hypotheses can't be developed around them. Deities aren't. There's nothing there.

Your point of view is exactly the reverse of how science operates.

Wrong.

With 20/20 hindsight, you declare that all scientific theories must come to us fully-formed with well-defined entities and mechanisms.

I declare no such thing.

No, it doesn't work that way. We fumble, we bumble, we test ideas without quite understanding what is going on.

There are criteria for ideas that are testable. The ideas need to be defined. Otherwise, there's nothing to test.

But with enough work, we finally understand to a useful degree.

You misunderstand. We can only test empirically whether concepts that are defined exist.

According to your reasoning, had Maxwell shown you his new equations describing EM waves, you would have dismissed his proposal because it doesn't have a "mechanism"....See the problem?

No. I don't know what you're on about or how it's supposed to bear upon my argument about possible evidence for gods.

(You don't need to understand EM waves here; all you need to know is that the aether explanation was unnecessary.)

It has nothing to do with understanding EM waves. Again, I don't know of what the aether explanation consisted, so I don't know if it was a scientific explanation ever. It doesn't bear upon my argument, but is simply a matter of categorization.

I can imagine evidence for a god, even an intangible god: say if you always got what you prayed for--or if people got what the majority prayed for.

No, that wouldn't be evidence for any gods, because gods aren't defined. They're scientifically meaningless. All you would have would be observed phenomena to be explained, and the entities and processes proposed to explain them would have to be defined or they wouldn't be subject to evidence.

SC, I've already given examples which you haven't understood, but for good measure I'll give one more (which you probably won't understand).

Tribes in the Amazon rainforest had complex rituals involving dance, potions, spells, etc. for healing members afflicted with malaria. They explain how it works in terms of gods and magic and such. According to you, since the entities are not well-defined, we should not investigate. Too bad, since that would have lead to the discovery of quinine.

It's patently obvious that tests can be made even when the "entities" are ill-defined or even non-existent. We aren't talking about testing for a deity, of course; we are talking about testing for the claimed physical effects of a deity.

SC, I've already given examples which you haven't understood, but for good measure I'll give one more (which you probably won't understand).

I've understood them perfectly, and understood that they were addressing a strawman version of my argument.

Tribes in the Amazon rainforest had complex rituals involving dance, potions, spells, etc. for healing members afflicted with malaria. They explain how it works in terms of gods and magic and such. According to you, since the entities are not well-defined, we should not investigate. Too bad, since that would have lead to the discovery of quinine.

If you would actually read my comments in the threads I linked to in my post and referred to several times in this thread, you would know that my thoughts about what is properly science are nuanced and tied to the state of scientific knowledge at the time. But that's a separate issue from that of whether evidence can be adduced for undefined notions like gods. And I've never said anything shouldn't be investigated (especially not rituals - I'm a social scientist; and it's important to understand what groups mean by "gods" and whether this is simply a name for natural phenomena).

That rituals or claims about healing "involved" gods to their participants doesn't disqualify them from investigation. But we need to be clear when we're talking about investigating specific claims, which goes beyond exploratory research. Which claims are being investigated, what hypotheses are being tested, and what is the evidence through which we can test them?

It's patently obvious that tests can be made even when the "entities" are ill-defined or even non-existent.

You're being unclear. "Tests can be made" is far too general of a statement. Tests can't be made of the existence of gods (for any value I've seen) in this context or any other. The entities involved in these tests would be people, actions, and substances - definable and observable. Proposed explanations would have to be entities and processes defined in some way as to be amenable to evidence. Gods are not.

We aren't talking about testing for a deity, of course;

Of course?! That's what my post and this whole discussion are about! Yes, of course - we aren't and we can't be - and you appear not to disagree with me, so I don't know what challenge you think you're posing to my argument here.

we are talking about testing for the claimed physical effects of a deity.

We're talking about testing for healing, proposing explanations for our observations, and then testing those explanations. If you think a deity can serve as a testable explanation for observed healing, then explain how. Define it.

Listen, you're arguing several points about research that I and others have discussed in some depth, but which don't really pertain to the matter at hand: Can there be evidence for a god? I've argued that there can't because the notion is not defined in a way that would render it amenable to evidence, and this is required for testing for it. You can either claim absurdly that we don't need a definition of something to test for its existence. Or you can provide a definition of god that meets this requirement. Otherwise you're blowing misaimed smoke.

All this handwaving is just annoying when nobody wants to come out and define a god in any testable way. If you want to make the case that something might prove that any gods exist, the first thing we need is a hypothesis which is clearly within our ability to test.

You can talk about probabilities and alternate realities and extra dimensions forever.

Define it. How will we know a true god? What will it look like, with what would we perceive it, and how do we disambiguate from non-gods?

Why can people write so much, without writing this part?

There's not much point in discussing it, if I don't know what it is. Kudos to SC for having the patience in absence of substance.

SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example summarizes the entire issue. You would not object to investigating the claims because no matter how incoherent or ill-defined their explanation is, an empirical experiment is always well-defined and independent of the presumed explanation. This is how James Randi is able to offer his million dollar prize.

What you still haven't grasped is that this is how science works. It is not required that coherent "entities" are defined, only that there is something empirical to investigate. The "entities" emerge later, after having been sussed out by the iterative process of reformulating and testing hypotheses.

That's why you have it backwards. You are assuming that some hypothesis has to be in place. There does not have to be. Hypotheses spring from less coherent conjectures, and those in turn spring from a curious investigator saying "WTF is going on?", who has no idea what "entities" may be involved or what a valid hypothesis or mechanism could possibly be.

That we don't have a mechanism for a deity is precisely the point. We don't have a mechanism for any phenomenon we've yet to understand. We only get those through rigorous testing and reformulating (and a mechanism may never emerge, as in the case of EM radiation). That's why your reasoning is circular. You are assuming we have to understand it in order to understand it. We don't. Every new theory in science begins with someone saying, "WTF is this?"--someone who doesn't understand it.

SC, that you conceded the Amazonian tribe example summarizes the entire issue.

What? No.

You would not object to investigating the claims

Which claims?

because no matter how incoherent or ill-defined their explanation is, an empirical experiment is always well-defined and independent of the presumed explanation.

Their explanation is irrelevant to testing whether and under what circumstances healing occurs. (At some point in time, this was unknown and investigating it was scientific.) That's what's being tested. As you keep noting, testing whether something happens or not can be done in the absence of explanations. I'm amazed that you don't see that you're arguing with yourself here. Testing for entities proposed as explanations requires that those entities be defined. Gods are not, and can't be.

This is how James Randi is able to offer his million dollar prize.

What? Wierd non sequitur. First, Randi's prize actually undercuts Mia's argument with my characterization of what Randi does as demonstrationn rather than scientific research: he wouldn't offer this sum if there was a chance of having to award it. But this is another matter. That earlier research on healing and Randi's "debunkings" are research/demonstrations of claims for which empirical evidence can be adduced ("Do we observe phenomenon X?"). They are not tests of god claims, and can't be.

What you still haven't grasped is that this is how science works.

What you haven't grasped is that you don't comprehend what I'm arguing (or seemingly what you are).

It is not required that coherent "entities" are defined, only that there is something empirical to investigate.

I will try one more time: Empirical investigations require defined entities for which evidence can be adduced. Empirical investigations (or demonstrations, depending) can be performed on claims about what happens to defined, observable entities. (Therefore, it wouldn't be possible to test claims of healing the spirits of dead people.) These are not investigations of the existence of gods.

The "entities" emerge later,

If we are researching claims of the existence of an entity, that entity has to be defined. A substance/chemical in tree bark is a defined entity. Gods are not.

after having been sussed out by the iterative process of reformulating and testing hypotheses.

That's why you have it backwards. You are assuming that some hypothesis has to be in place.

Beyond exploratory research, in order to test claims, yes.

There does not have to be.

Tests cannot be performed for the existence of undefined entities. It's that simple. I don't know how you can be this dense.

Hypotheses spring from less coherent conjectures, and those in turn spring from a curious investigator saying "WTF is going on?",

Well, this isn't precisely correct. But this discussion isn't about the precise understanding of hypotheses or curiosity. If someone is positing the existence of an entity - as an explanation for observed phenomena or just in general - that entity has to be defined so as to be amenable to evidence in order for evidence to be adduced for it.

who has no idea what "entities" may be involved or what a valid hypothesis or mechanism could possibly be.

This post is about testing for the existence of gods. That is the topic. You want to talk about testing other claims, but that is irrelevant.

That we don't have a mechanism for a deity is precisely the point.

A mechanism for a deity? I suggest you step away for a bit and then go back and read my post, because you are seriously confused.

We don't have a mechanism for any phenomenon we've yet to understand. We only get those through rigorous testing and reformulating (and a mechanism may never emerge, as in the case of EM radiation).

Healing and radiation are phenomena. Deities are not.

That's why your reasoning is circular.

Your thoughts are so jumbled it's making my head hurt to read them.

You are assuming we have to understand it in order to understand it.

OK, I'm tired of these completely vague general statements. If we're testing for whether something like healing happens, we don't have to understand why it might happen, because it's defined and we can observe it. If we're testing for the existence of an entity, it has to be defined. Stop conflating the two: studies of healing are not testing for gods, and can't.

I have now explained this as patiently and fully as I think is necessary for an intelligent person to grasp, even catering to your mischaracterizing tangents. If you have an argument to make about this:

"Can there be evidence for a god? I've argued that there can't because the notion is not defined in a way that would render it amenable to evidence, and this is required for testing for it. You can either claim absurdly that we don't need a definition of something to test for its existence. Or you can provide a definition of god that meets this requirement."

then bring it. If not, I won't be entertaining your comments further. That goes for Mia as well. And now I have work to do.

Supernaturalists have to overcome the ignostic challenge that He has no referents and has contradictory,incoherent attributes. Then, per provisional methodological naturalism [ Maarten Boudry, science itself could admit Him as a possible entity to investigate.They'd have to overcome the presumption of naturalism that not only are natural causes and explanations efficient and necessary but also primary and sufficient as the sufficient reason. This neither begs the question nor sandbags them but is simply the demand for evidence. Google the ignostic-Ockham, ignosticism and the presumption of naturalism. Ignostic Morgan's Blog.wordpress.com

It used to be people were clear about their gods. There's one that makes the river flood, there's one that makes the sun come up, there's one that gives horrible diseases to children, but supposedly loves us anyway.

But now only the ignorant or insane invole gods to explain that kind of thing because we know how it works, and people persist in claiming that there are gods, despite the fact that the gaps the accursed things are retreating in to are too small to park a hydrocarbon molecule in.

I think the best part is when these fictional characters' fan clubs change their position. The slightest adjustment in their stance undermines their claims. Society changes, and no matter how the old bastards drag their heels, they eventually have to change to fit it, and when you've built your organization on claims of having Ultimate Truth, changing your mind reveals the lies.

Oh, hey, there's a Scientology ad at the bottom of the page. Burn the heretic! Er, you know what I mean.